Wow. I am blown away by this. What is the most disturbing is the fact that 46% of those that describe themselves as Republican feel this way as well. Now it didn’t go into what those programs should be, but still I am sitting here shaking my head.

There are government programs that I feel are good ones. I think the Small Business Administration backing loans for businesses is a good use of public funds. It helps promote economic growth as well as improving employment for people around the country. Now, I do feel that if people don’t pay back the loans, the assets should be seized so the tax payers are not on the hook. Although I do find some of the ways that grants are given out is suspect at best. It seems that if you are a white man, you need not apply. Shocker. But the loan program is a good government program. But that program isn’t based on age. While it is unlikely that seniors are going to be applying for these, it isn’t based on age.

I also believe that as a country the majority of us agree that we need to make investments in educating our young. The disagreement comes from what level of government should be doing it, but virtually all feel that we need an education system. Now I personally believe that it is in major disrepair and needs serious overhaul, but I certainly don’t feel that it isn’t a good use of public funds.

While this should come as no surprise, the majority of people who feel that young should get more public funds are between the ages of 18-29. This of course is the group that put the least amount into the system, yet feels it should be the group that takes advantage of what is there, and to be honest the way we spend money in this country it isn’t even using what is there, it is borrowed money. I guess the reality that they are the ones going forward are going to pay the highest price for all this borrowing. But it will hit them eventually.

I am not a huge fan of Social Security. I would like to see a plan that is partially privatized and allow people to make a choice about how to invest their money for their futures. Lets be honest here, it is difficult, at best, to live solely on that income and it is costing tax payers a fortune. While that is due to mismanagement by our government officials (Thanks, LBJ), it doesn’t change the fact that we all are going to pay higher and higher taxes to pay out what was promised. We still have a generation of people who were not able to take advantage of retirement plans from day one of their adult work lives, they absolutely should be given the benefits that they have paid in to. But today virtually any worker can take advantage of retirement savings plan. I even had one as a part-time retail worker.

I honestly don’t know what it is going to take to make people see that our government is too big, too intrusive and way too expensive. Paying a great deal of money in taxes due to reckless spending is why people don’t have money to do the things that they want to do.

This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.

Some young people here don’t join the military (a traditional escape route for poor, rural Americans) because it’s easier to rely on food stamps and disability payments.

Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In a means-tested program like S.S.I., a woman raising a child may receive a bigger check if she refrains from marrying that hard-working guy she likes. Yet marriage is one of the best forces to blunt poverty. In married couple households only one child in 10 grows up in poverty, while almost half do in single-mother households.

This goes hand and hand with a piece I did on drugging your children for money.

Speaking as a disabled person who has, at different times in my life had to rely on those social safety net programs. Believe me when I tell you that there is absolutely zero thought given to how to get a person OFF the assistance from the government, no matter what form it may be.

For example, after I receive my heart transplant (assuming I get a donor heart BEFORE Obamacare kicks in), there will be no “bridge” program for me to get off of Social Security Disability and/or Medicare. When I fully recuperate and begin to work again, utilizing my degree in Psychology, I will understandably no longer receive SSDI. However, I will also not receive Medicare and will have no coverage until my private insurance kicks in. (Again, so much of this depends on Obamacare – will private insurance exist?, will I get health insurance with the benefits in whatever job I resume?, etc…)

So I will have to find a way to pay for my meds, and medical needs – and believe me, I will ALWAYS have medical bills after being a heart transplant recipient – while I am in that limbo between the nanny state and self sufficiency.

As I said, there is no thought given to how best to help folks wean their selves off of the government assistance programs.

Exactly. That is the biggest problem with them. In far too many cases they hurt more than help. We need to start pro-rating many of the benefits. It will allow people to work themselves out of the program without the fear of them losing everything. That is one of the major problems with people finding better paying positions. Yes they will make a little more money, but it won’t be enough to survive without the benefits, so of course they don’t take the better job. It is common sense that they are not going to take a job that will put them in position of being homeless. There is no transition period in these programs.

Where have you folks been? There is a fee added to everyone’s cell phone bill – well, everyone who pays their own cell phone bill at least – which is set aside for various “free” cell phones “people who qualify” can get. Guess who qualifies? If you’re getting Medicaid or Food Stamps or WIC or … get it? The daytime TV carries advertising – outreach, more accurately I think – inviting folks who might qualify to call some number and get their free phone and free phone time. I’ve been seeing these regularly and figured out who’s paying for it when I called Sprint about the extra fees in my cell phone bil.

None of us mind paying a bit extra for the benefit of those who really are in need of assistance. Madame Screech here can most likely afford her own phone as it is reported that she was also a demonstrator / protester at a Romney event that same day ! Paid protester bused around. (according to a caller in to Rush today)

I know that. It was started under President Bush after Katrina to help the people who lost virtually everything. It is a state thing primarily. The states can decide who they give them to. Some states have larger program than others. Personally I have no problem giving phones to the homeless. I also have no problem giving them to the very poor, they are actually cheaper than paying for landline. My state program is very small, so I honestly don’t have an issue with it. My point was that she was willing to vote on it. The fact that she isn’t even aware of why she gets it is a whole other can of worms.

A caller in to one of the talk shows worked in a Social Services office where a recipient was demanding her check. The woman stated flatly, arrogantly, “No one in my family has worked in 3 generations. I`m not going to be the first !” An Obamabot no doubt !

I think it will come as no surprise to anyone that I have strong opinions about a myriad of topics. The Catholic Church among them. I am strongly anti-Catholic church, but not Catholic people. I have no issue with someone who chooses to follow the faith, it just isn’t for me. One of the reasons that I feel so strongly about it is the hypocrisy of allowing people like Nanny Pelosi to meet with the pope and to receive communion, especially in his presence. My church wouldn’t allow someone like the strongly pro-abortion politician to receive communion. You want to espouse those ideas so publicly and pass the laws that undermine church teaching you shouldn’t be allowed to partake in receiving the holy sacraments.

But my opinion doesn’t cloud my judgement when it comes to the autonomy that they should receive when it comes to the right to worship. Catholic Charities does works around the entire world for the betterment of society. They help the forgotten children get into the homes of the childless among many other things. I know several people who adopted through Catholic Charities.

More than 90% of the homeless shelters and soup kitchens in this country alone are run by faith-based groups. They never ask what faith, if any, you are. They will give you shelter and food. They will give one time loans to the people who may be on the verge of homelessness. They help people with young children keep the electricity and heat on in their homes. They clothe the needy.

In the aftermath of Katrina the faith-based groups worked tirelessly to help the victims get back on their feet. They are still there in some cases. The same is true of Haiti. Our world is a better place because of faith-based charities.

Over the weekend at CPAC I was having dinner with a friend who ran into a friend who is a liberal and she joined us for dinner. She told me that she didn’t see it as an attack on the church. She reminded me that many catholic women use birth control. Ok, I suppose that is true. But it doesn’t matter if many Catholic women use birth control or not. The church doesn’t run by polls. It runs by a doctrine based upon the belief system set out in the bible. Just because many of the “faithful” choose not to follow the doctrine doesn’t mean that the doctrine doesn’t exist. It doesn’t mean that the doctrine should be changed. It doesn’t mean that the doctrine is misguided. Nor does it mean that the church should have to pay for it. All human beings fall short of the will of God. Every last one of us. Sadly, far too many Christians fall into the cafeteria style religion that has become all to common in modern-day society. We pick and choose what we take from the faith and leave the things that we find hard or go against what modern-day society tells us is acceptable in the world. This being the case makes it even more imperative that the church stands its ground. The moral guidance that faith gives our society should not be watered down.

The exemption for faith-based groups exist. They are so stringent that they are hard to achieve, but not impossible. I once worked for a charity called the prison fellowship ministries. I only worked there on a contract basis, but the full-time employees have to sign something saying that they accept Jesus Christ as their savior. If you are unwilling to sign it, you can’t be an employee there. It is that simple. But most faith-based charities don’t require that. You can be of any faith to work there and they will help anyone of any faith, or lack thereof.

I asked this woman if she would be alright if Catholic charities and other faith-based groups stopped helping people of different faiths. She told me she would fine with that. Really? You are willing to forgo the good these organizations do just to prove a point about birth control? I was stunned to say the least. I would like to think she doesn’t have a firm idea of what faith-based groups do around the world.

But I got to thinking, maybe that is the point. Maybe this is the whole reason that they are pushing this. Stay with me now. Say that many faith-based groups do decide to change the way they run their organizations. They will only administer help to people within their own faith in order to stay in compliance with the exemption. What happens to all the others who will no longer be getting the help that they give? They have to turn to the state. Especially if they are not people of faith.

It would be virtually impossible for the faith-based groups to know if the people they are helping are truly people of that faith. I wouldn’t put it past atheist activists to try to get services from a faith-based group and then publicize the fact that they were not truly just administering to the “faithful”. Many good people would lose jobs at Catholic University’s and hospitals. Many people in need of service would be turned away.

Many government grants go to Catholic charity groups all over the country. They are much better at administering to the needs of the poor and underprivileged. This will all have to stop. The programs again would fall back to the pervue of the federal and state governments. The entire reason that they were given to the faith-based groups in the first place was that they helped more people for less money. They understand the needs of an individual community much better because they live there. They dont’ fall into the one size fits all mentality that is the norm with government based programs.

So the next time that President Obama talks about helping the poor we need to remind ourselves of the damage he will cause by pushing this mandate to its logical conclusion. The poor will become even more underserved, unless of course they happen to be of the same faith of the organization down the street that could and would help.

Excellent post, Girl. I would point out that there is one religion that exclusively provides charity only for its members: Islam. So restricting Christian faiths from ministering to all, according to the Christian view of charity, would not violate the Islamic view of charity.

Excellent post and reasoning, jacg ! You are spot on ! Remove all other choices for help in times of need and the only source left will be the government. Then the government can decide the needy`s outcome. Frightening indeed !

We’re going to have to be willing to give anyway, to work anyway, to ignore these immoral fiats and grabs for power designed to demand that all religion be reduced to nothing but warm fuzzy meaninglessness, we’re going to have to decide that we will hold tight to the cross and tell the government, it’s rules are taking it to a much worse place than jail, a much less forgiving place than even the government can create.